AOD-9604 vs Tesamorelin
AOD-9604's largest identified human obesity trial was negative, whereas tesamorelin has strong indication-specific VAT evidence in HIV-associated lipodystrophy. They should not be treated as equivalent 'fat-loss peptides'.
| Attribute | AOD-9604 | Tesamorelin |
|---|---|---|
| Human evidence | AOD-9604 underwent an oral obesity development programme. FDA's 2024 evidence review describes a 502-person randomized 24-week OPTIONS trial that found no statistically significant weight-loss difference versus placebo; an earlier 300-person dose-ranging study produced only small differences of unclear clinical importance. | Tesamorelin has strong evidence for its narrow HIV-associated abdominal-fat indication. A randomized HIV/NAFLD study also reduced liver fat substantially, while a small 2025 Phase II cognitive trial did not show significant between-group cognitive benefit. |
| Research focus | Obesity/body-composition research | Excess abdominal visceral fat in adults with HIV and lipodystrophy |
| Regulatory status | Not FDA-approved; FDA has raised compounding safety concerns. | FDA-licensed Egrifta formulations are indicated to reduce excess abdominal fat in adults with HIV and lipodystrophy; not a general weight-loss approval. |
| Route / formulation | Research findings depend on verified AOD-9604 identity and route. | Research-market tesamorelin is not automatically equivalent to authorised Egrifta products. |
Why these are compared
These compounds appear in the abdominal fat / weight-management evidence evidence landscape, but they are not interchangeable. AOD-9604 is modified c-terminal hgh fragment peptide studied in obesity/body-composition research; Tesamorelin is ghrh analogue peptide studied in excess abdominal visceral fat in adults with hiv and lipodystrophy. The purpose of this page is to compare the evidence base, not to recommend one compound over another.
Evidence maturity
AOD-9604: Human obesity development programme with large negative efficacy trial; unapproved.
Tesamorelin: Approved narrow indication with additional randomized human metabolic evidence.
The table above gives the fuller human-evidence, regulatory and formulation context. Open the individual profiles for study-level records, limitations and source provenance.
What this comparison can and cannot establish
No meaningful head-to-head trial. Cross-study comparisons can be distorted by differences in population, route, formulation, dose, duration and endpoint. WhichPeps therefore does not turn indirect comparisons into a treatment recommendation or name a winner. A well-designed head-to-head human trial using comparable populations and clinically relevant outcomes would reduce uncertainty.